Friday, May 22, 2015

Zeitgeist: combative literalism

Many with more developed and complex intellects have
taken on the task of defining the zeitgeist of their times. However that
deficit has not blocked attempts to climb other steep slopes.

As a counter to the theory that great men/women make
history, the “spirit of the times” articulates the view that we are all
generated by a period of history, complete with its own art, literature, music,
architecture, and technology. As part of that period of history, Hegel posits,
we are conditioned to express its spirit, temper, tone and rhythm.

Some would point and have even pointed to examples
of writing and artistic expression, following the post-moderns, that focuses on
the escape from political tyranny that exploded some decade ago. Others reflect
on the dynamic that links, combines, mixes, integrates more than one genre
fusing them into one or more of an array of colours, sounds, scents, beats and
shapes. Hybrids have dominated the industrial production model for a few
decades, and the archetype has been borrowed, stolen, abrogated or even
championed in many other fields.

With the new capacities of technology, many
scientists in laboratories (too often funded exclusively by specific
corporations seeking new products in their insatiable quest for profits) are
learning new traits of specific genes thereby transforming the treatment of various
diseases. The convenience and obsolescence motifs of the last half of the
twentieth century, including the alienated and invisible man in a grey flannel
suit, the flower children of Haight Ashbury, and the LSD culture of Timothy
Leary, have given way to the instant and ubiquitous communication devices which
now connect nearly every person on the planet, and connect all their users to
uber vacuums owned and operated by some very large corporations. These
corporations now have the capacity to gallop gazillions of bytes of information
on every person who uses one of their devices and the governments in which
these corporations operate are almost literally emasculated in their power of
governance to limit the scope and the penetration of the digital appetite.

In fact, there is growing evidence that corporations
through various methods including but not restricted to their political
“investments” of cash, practically control the people who have been elected to
provide laws for the benefit of the nation (state, province, city, town
township) given the level of influence and impact of the corporate behemoths.

Is the
zeitgeist of the first two decades of the twenty-first century the almost
complete take-over of the geopolitical and the global economic system?

Is the zeitgeist of these two decades more to be
found in the rise of religious ideologies of intolerance masquerading as
theology, in the worship of idols of interpretation of select holy texts, given
the failure of millions of the world’s population to read at a level that can
and will challenge the literalism of these zealots?

Is the zeitgeist of our time more to be found in the
apathy and ennui of the many millions currently living in what have been
traditionally called democracies, given the level of manipulation by those in
office and those seeking political office and the large cheque books they have
to purchase even more seductive advertising and public relations?

Or, (and we consider this to be more than a mere
symptom of the many issues currently stampeding both the battlefields and the
headlines,) have we lost our poetic impulse, reducing our lives to literal,
evidential, dogmatic and contentious disputes that want immediate resolution,
even if that resolution requires a bullet to achieve? We have let loose the dogs of what used to be
the agents of compromise, civility, balance and order: the lawyers, accountants
and the militarists.

It really does not matter which public issue. These
conditions attach to all: the lack of nuance, and of connotative and symbolic
comprehension and expression on the issue, regardless of whether the voices
come from the ‘pro’ or the ‘con’ side of the debate. All positions are so
rigid, so fixed and so resistant to compromise and amendment that there are
really only two positions, in most of our public discourse,

Binary has morphed into bi-polar, into either-or,
and into what was once considered an intellectual insult, Manicheanism.
Adolescence, or perhaps even pre-puberty is our deliberately chosen zeitgeist,
our collective “crowd-sourcing” of the lowest common denominator.

We have not only thereby compromised our common goals
and the many complimentary roads to
achieving those goals. We have also eliminated much of the potential for
sharing responsibility for planning, strategy and execution of joint processes,
international agreements, collaborations that could and only would begin to
confront threats like global warming and climate change, religious
fundamentalism and its many and nefarious ramifications of alienation, revenge,
conflict and even war with all of its fatalities, the most important one being
the truth.

Looking down the telescope backwardly will only
provide a minimalist view of both the seriousness of our problems and the
narrowest range of options for solutions.

Even the historic forges of complexity and diversity
and critical thinking, imagination, unorthodoxy, eccentricity, frontiership,
and courage, the universities and especially their liberal arts departments are
suffering the kind of atrophy that accompanies altzheimers patients. The
churches, too, have permitted themselves to be taken over by the
fundamentalists, the literalists and the bigots. The television and movie systems
have become dominated by increasingly exaggerated scenes of violence and
sexuality. Gone is subtlety, nuance, metaphor, and all of the many other
literary devices that require, even demand, a variety of perceptions,
interpretations, and a creative and critical examination, as the lifeblood of
their continuing existence.

Little wonder that manners have disappeared,
literally, from our streets and walkways, where, upon encountering another, you
can count on their refusal to adjust to accommodate your path along with their
own, on the same sidewalk. Little wonder that a Canadian soldier returns from a
tour of duty in Afghanistan complaining about how “Canadian” were his superiors
in surrendering the most advantageous encampment right in the centre of the village,
where they could observe all potential threats. Politeness gone off the rails!

What he failed to express was the utter failure of
both his superiors and their masters to seek and to find other than military
methods to confront the Taliban and the Islamic extremists.

We are spending ourselves into a culture that is not
life-sustaining, but rather is spiritually, psychologically and emotionally
paralyzing and even death-inducing on all levels.

And we are doing it with our eyes wide open.

Our collective security on this planet is much more
complicated than the vagaries of success that confront a professional sport
coach, where winning is the only thing, and the methods of achieving sports
success, as well as the trophy of the championship brings only more fame,
status, and money.

Survival of all of the most indigent and most
impoverished and most destitute among us is the only goal worthy of our
efforts, and that not at a mere existence level but at a level of dignity,
respect and collaboration that must be achieved in order to succeed for our
grandchildren.